Delhi High Court Closes Petitions by Newslaundry, Ravish Kumar After Parties Reach 'Understanding' with Adani Group

NEW DELHI – In a significant development at the intersection of media law, corporate litigation, and constitutional freedoms, the Delhi High Court on September 26, 2025, disposed of writ petitions filed by digital news platform Newslaundry and senior journalist Ravish Kumar. The pleas challenged a controversial directive from the Union Government to take down online content critical of the Adani Group. The closure came after the parties informed the court of an "understanding" reached with Adani Enterprises Limited, effectively pausing the takedown demands pending a final decision on an interim injunction application in the lower court.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta recorded the terms of the agreement, which provides a temporary reprieve for the journalists and their publications. This resolution caps a tumultuous few weeks that saw a sweeping ex-parte gag order, broad takedown notices from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), and subsequent appellate court interventions that systematically chipped away at the initial restraint order.

The Core of the "Understanding"

The petitions filed by Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar were born out of a September 16 directive from the MIB. This communication instructed them, along with several other journalists and content creators, to comply with a September 6 ex-parte order from a Delhi Civil Court in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises. Crucially, neither Newslaundry nor Ravish Kumar were originally named defendants in that suit.

The understanding, as noted by Justice Datta, stipulates that Adani Enterprises will not press for the removal of any content published by the petitioners that was live as of 12:00 PM on September 26, 2025. This arrangement will remain in effect until the Senior Civil Judge at the Rohini Courts decides on Adani's application for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

The court recorded the specifics of the agreement:

"The understating is to the effect that the plaintiff in the suit (Adani) will not seek that the present petitioners take down any further material hosted on their sites or any other intermediary existing as on 12 PM on September 26. It is agreed that in case the petitioners have already taken down any material, the same shall not be re-uploaded."

This strategic compromise allows the journalists to keep their existing work online while the legal battle over the interim injunction proceeds in the trial court. Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani Enterprises, confirmed that Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar would now argue their case before the Senior Civil Judge rather than pursuing appeals. In light of this development, the Union of India has been directed to issue a corrigendum to its initial takedown notice.

Background: A Broad Gag Order and Executive Action

The legal saga began on September 6, 2025, when a Senior Civil Judge in Rohini issued a sweeping ex-parte, ad-interim injunction in a civil defamation suit, Adani Enterprises Ltd. v. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta & Ors. . The order restrained the named defendants from publishing "unverified" material and empowered Adani Enterprises to apply to intermediaries for the takedown of such content within 36 hours, as per the IT Rules, 2021.

The order's expansive language, including its application to "John Doe" defendants, had an immediate and wide-ranging effect. On September 16, the MIB issued a notice to a list of nearly 140 URLs, including content from Newslaundry, Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, and others who were not parties to the original suit, directing them to comply with the court's order.

This executive action prompted the writ petitions in the High Court. Ravish Kumar's plea argued that the MIB's directive was an "unprecedented and unconstitutional exercise of executive power that strikes at the very foundation of democratic governance, press freedom and the separation of powers doctrine." Newslaundry contended that they were not parties to the suit and the court's order did not name any of their content, making the MIB's notice legally untenable.

Appellate Courts Curtail the Ex-Parte Order

While the High Court petitions were pending, parallel challenges in the district appellate courts were already dismantling the initial gag order.

• September 18, 2025: In an appeal by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts quashed the ex-parte order as it applied to them. The appellate court held that such sweeping pre-publication restrictions were legally unsustainable without first hearing the journalists. It also noted the trial court's order effectively outsourced the determination of defamatory content to intermediaries, stating, "An incorrect determination by intermediaries would bring those who have not complied with it in the teeth of contempt."

• September 24-25, 2025: In a separate appeal by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, another District Judge, Sunil Chaudhary, also allowed the appeal. The judge directed that Thakurta "will not be liable to follow the order dated 06.09.2025" until a fresh order is passed by the Senior Civil Judge after hearing all parties on the interim injunction application.

These appellate victories set a crucial precedent, establishing that the broad, ex-parte restraint was procedurally and substantively flawed. This context likely influenced the "understanding" reached in the High Court, as the legal foundation for the MIB's takedown notice had already been significantly weakened.

Legal Analysis and Implications

The disposal of the High Court petitions without a definitive ruling on the merits leaves several critical legal questions unanswered, particularly concerning the MIB's authority to issue takedown orders based on broad, ex-parte civil injunctions. However, the outcome offers important strategic takeaways for legal practitioners in media and defamation law.

1. Procedural Victory for Press Freedom: While not a substantive ruling on the content itself, the outcome is a procedural win for the journalists. The immediate threat of takedown has been neutralized, and the status quo is maintained. The fight now moves from a constitutional challenge in the High Court to a focused argument on the merits of an injunction in the trial court, where the bar for granting prior restraint is exceptionally high.

2. Scrutiny on Ex-Parte Injunctions: The appellate courts' decisions underscore the judiciary's caution regarding ex-parte orders that curtail free speech. The emphasis on hearing defendants before imposing such drastic measures and the criticism of vague, overbroad language serve as important reminders for litigants seeking gag orders. The requirement to adhere to the 30-day disposal timeline under Order 39 Rule 3A of the CPC was also highlighted.

3. The Chilling Effect and SLAPP Suits: The case is a textbook example of how defamation suits, particularly those initiated by large corporate entities, can create a significant "chilling effect" on journalism. The initial order and the subsequent government notice forced multiple media outlets and independent journalists to divert resources to legal defense, even if they were not party to the original suit. This pattern is often indicative of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to intimidate and silence critics through the legal process itself.

4. Role of the Executive: The MIB's swift action based on an ex-parte order remains a point of legal concern. Critics argue that the Ministry acted as an enforcement arm for a private litigant without independent application of mind, raising questions about due process and the separation of powers. The High Court's directive for a corrigendum is a tacit acknowledgment that the original notice is no longer operative in light of the new understanding.

The matter will now proceed before the Senior Civil Judge, where arguments on Adani's application for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 will be heard from all parties, including the newly impleaded Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar. The legal community will be watching closely as the trial court balances the principles of corporate reputation against the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression.